3 ms·

I really dislike this take. Listen, it's fine if people enjoy nonlinear storytelling to make it an "experience" or a canvas with a few straight lines painted o

I really dislike this take. Listen, it's fine if people enjoy nonlinear storytelling to make it an "experience" or a canvas with a few straight lines painted on it. But it is stupid, to follow your quote. If you're using devices to make a story more difficult to follow, just for the sake of making it more difficult to follow for the "challenge", then that's stupid. I'm not claiming The Big Sleep is even in this category, because I haven't seen it, but plenty of films and books are. If a canvas painted a solid color or with a few straight lines sells for millions, then that's stupid. People enjoy "stupid" things all the time, and that's fine. There's nothing really wrong with that. But the important part of my point is: only artists seem to think they're above it.

nwienert 5y ago
Only you are claiming it’s only purpose is to make it more difficult to follow. There are a hundred valid reasons to have non-sequitur or ambiguity beyond the literal first-level surface analysis of just making it harder to understand.
BoiledCabbage 5y ago
> If you're using devices to make a story more difficult to follow, just for the sake of making it more difficult to follow for the "challenge", then that's stupid. I don't know you, and even I know you disagree with your own statement. If not, the only thing you'd enjoy are media targeted at pre-schoolers and young children. Anything targeting and age beyond that is made more difficult to follow, by design to make it more challenging than what a young child can grasp. That allowed the creator to explore deeper subjects. Maybe you don't like things more challenging than your comfort zone, maybe you don't like more less linear depictions but do like them somewhat. Unless you can tell me you only consume media targeted at young children. Even you average Marvel film leaves plenty unsaid that needs to be infered, plenty unspoken to be felt. Non-linear narrative's to evoke a response in the viewe, false imagery, deception, feints and direct intuitional/emotional appeals. Now those might be targeted at just where you like them, but thats admiring you like them and you agree with the approach and that it's not stupid. It's just when thing slave your preferred zone you begin to dislike them.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > If not, the only thing you'd enjoy are media targeted at pre-schoolers and young children. Oh come on, you know I wasn't talking about that kind of challenge. There are two things: 1. Pieces that are more challenging to read/watch because the story is deeper and the challenging read is required to tell that story. 2. A piece that purposely makes it the story harder to follow, or is otherwise really difficult to follow, without adding much depth. I was clearly talking about #2. "In fact, the plot isn't impossible to follow – it's just extraordinarily difficult without a pen, a notepad and a pause button to hand." - The article That's just stupid, and absolutely falls into #2. It's a crime drama.
  - ubermonkey 5y ago
    ...and we all know that a genre film cannot also be challenging!
  - Firadeoclus 5y ago
    The article makes the argument that the plot being hard to follow is in fact to the film's benefit. So unless you require "depth" to be plot depth, that doesn't match #2. There are qualities other than "plot depth" that can be enhanced by ambiguity. Most people don't watch a film solely for the plot. > It's a crime drama. Is that prescriptive or descriptive?
nl 5y ago
> Listen, it's fine if people enjoy nonlinear storytelling to make it an "experience" or a canvas with a few straight lines painted on it. But it is stupid, to follow your quote. Why? Mondrian painting are the most beautiful, calming pieces of art I know of (just look at Composition C (No. III) with Red, Yellow and Blue) > If you're using devices to make a story more difficult to follow, just for the sake of making it more difficult to follow for the "challenge", then that's stupid. Why? Other things use devices to make them more challenging, and this is generally accepted as entertaining. Think harder levels in video games, rules in sports and games etc. Why should stories be any different? And it should be noted there are different levels to this. For example, Shakespeare tells one story on the surface, but if that is all you understand then you miss the glory of Shakespeare: his use of literary devices to tell other, hidden stories underneath what you think you are reading. You seem to be using the word "stupid" to mean something like "non-obvious". That isn't what "stupid" means.
- yupper32 5y ago
  > Mondrian painting are the most beautiful, calming pieces of art I know of (just look at Composition C (No. III) with Red, Yellow and Blue) And it sold for $50 million, which is the stupid part here. The value is not in the piece itself. We're getting a bit distracted talking about paintings though. > Think harder levels in video games, rules in sports and games etc. The equivalent here would be a nearly impossible game. One that doesn't tell you the goal or the controls. And you randomly jump from level 1 to level 400 to level 33. And then some silly pretentious person says "Well why does the game need to be linear?" "You know just like real life you have to figure out the controls!" "It's not actually meant to be played" "The challenge is figuring out what's going on" That'd be stupid. Is there a niche of people that would like it? Probably. > You seem to be using the word "stupid" to mean something like "non-obvious". That isn't what "stupid" means. Stupid isn't a great word for this, I just used it to follow the person I was responding to. "Extremely Pretentious", maybe? "Ridiculous"?
ubermonkey 5y ago
You're mistaking the point of a (notionally) narrative medium. It doesn't HAVE to be linear storytelling. Difficult texts are their own reward. Not everything has to spoon-feed you the plot. And enjoying things like a Lynch film doesn't mean you don't also enjoy highly conventional narratives like the aforementioned Marvel films. >If a canvas painted a solid color or with a few straight lines sells for millions, then that's stupid. Thank god we have you here to explain how the experts are all just plain wrong!

nwienert 5y ago

Only you are claiming it’s only purpose is to make it more difficult to follow. There are a hundred valid reasons to have non-sequitur or ambiguity beyond the literal first-level surface analysis of just making it harder to understand.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago

> If you're using devices to make a story more difficult to follow, just for the sake of making it more difficult to follow for the "challenge", then that's stupid. I don't know you, and even I know you disagree with your own statement. If not, the only thing you'd enjoy are media targeted at pre-schoolers and young children. Anything targeting and age beyond that is made more difficult to follow, by design to make it more challenging than what a young child can grasp. That allowed the creator to explore deeper subjects. Maybe you don't like things more challenging than your comfort zone, maybe you don't like more less linear depictions but do like them somewhat. Unless you can tell me you only consume media targeted at young children. Even you average Marvel film leaves plenty unsaid that needs to be infered, plenty unspoken to be felt. Non-linear narrative's to evoke a response in the viewe, false imagery, deception, feints and direct intuitional/emotional appeals. Now those might be targeted at just where you like them, but thats admiring you like them and you agree with the approach and that it's not stupid. It's just when thing slave your preferred zone you begin to dislike them.

yupper32 5y ago
> If not, the only thing you'd enjoy are media targeted at pre-schoolers and young children. Oh come on, you know I wasn't talking about that kind of challenge. There are two things: 1. Pieces that are more challenging to read/watch because the story is deeper and the challenging read is required to tell that story. 2. A piece that purposely makes it the story harder to follow, or is otherwise really difficult to follow, without adding much depth. I was clearly talking about #2. "In fact, the plot isn't impossible to follow – it's just extraordinarily difficult without a pen, a notepad and a pause button to hand." - The article That's just stupid, and absolutely falls into #2. It's a crime drama.
- ubermonkey 5y ago
  ...and we all know that a genre film cannot also be challenging!
- Firadeoclus 5y ago
  The article makes the argument that the plot being hard to follow is in fact to the film's benefit. So unless you require "depth" to be plot depth, that doesn't match #2. There are qualities other than "plot depth" that can be enhanced by ambiguity. Most people don't watch a film solely for the plot. > It's a crime drama. Is that prescriptive or descriptive?

nl 5y ago

> Listen, it's fine if people enjoy nonlinear storytelling to make it an "experience" or a canvas with a few straight lines painted on it. But it is stupid, to follow your quote. Why? Mondrian painting are the most beautiful, calming pieces of art I know of (just look at Composition C (No. III) with Red, Yellow and Blue) > If you're using devices to make a story more difficult to follow, just for the sake of making it more difficult to follow for the "challenge", then that's stupid. Why? Other things use devices to make them more challenging, and this is generally accepted as entertaining. Think harder levels in video games, rules in sports and games etc. Why should stories be any different? And it should be noted there are different levels to this. For example, Shakespeare tells one story on the surface, but if that is all you understand then you miss the glory of Shakespeare: his use of literary devices to tell other, hidden stories underneath what you think you are reading. You seem to be using the word "stupid" to mean something like "non-obvious". That isn't what "stupid" means.

yupper32 5y ago
> Mondrian painting are the most beautiful, calming pieces of art I know of (just look at Composition C (No. III) with Red, Yellow and Blue) And it sold for $50 million, which is the stupid part here. The value is not in the piece itself. We're getting a bit distracted talking about paintings though. > Think harder levels in video games, rules in sports and games etc. The equivalent here would be a nearly impossible game. One that doesn't tell you the goal or the controls. And you randomly jump from level 1 to level 400 to level 33. And then some silly pretentious person says "Well why does the game need to be linear?" "You know just like real life you have to figure out the controls!" "It's not actually meant to be played" "The challenge is figuring out what's going on" That'd be stupid. Is there a niche of people that would like it? Probably. > You seem to be using the word "stupid" to mean something like "non-obvious". That isn't what "stupid" means. Stupid isn't a great word for this, I just used it to follow the person I was responding to. "Extremely Pretentious", maybe? "Ridiculous"?

ubermonkey 5y ago

You're mistaking the point of a (notionally) narrative medium. It doesn't HAVE to be linear storytelling. Difficult texts are their own reward. Not everything has to spoon-feed you the plot. And enjoying things like a Lynch film doesn't mean you don't also enjoy highly conventional narratives like the aforementioned Marvel films. >If a canvas painted a solid color or with a few straight lines sells for millions, then that's stupid. Thank god we have you here to explain how the experts are all just plain wrong!